US Citizens! 21 for CCW?!

[charliebravo]

We have soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan right now that are only 18 years old. We will ket an 18 year old fight and die, but we won't let him carry a concealed weapon. This is not right. Please write your local, state, and national representatives to get this law changed. Government officials don't seem to realize that a criminal will carry a gun even if the law says that he cannot, while law abiding citizens will obey the law. The only guns the government is removeing is the law-abiding citizen's guns!

You can get all the information that you need to write your representatives from www.nra.org. Pleease also write a differnet letter asking for the lifting of Clinton's assault weapons ban.

Thanks.

[kinghk]

We have soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan right now that are only 18 years old. We will ket an 18 year old fight and die, but we won't let him carry a concealed weapon. This is not right.

He is not allowed to buy alcohol either.

[charliebravo]

I agree with that, but one is not guaranteed the right to buy alcohol by the Constitution. However he is guaranteed the right to bear arms. But I think alcohol shoud be made illegal because nothing good has ever come from it. Why did Roosevelt undo Prohibition.

[GLax]

I agree with that, but one is not guaranteed the right to buy alcohol by the Constitution. However he is guaranteed the right to bear arms. But I think alcohol shoud be made illegal because nothing good has ever come from it. Why did Roosevelt undo Prohibition.

bootlegging for one thing. alcohal never did anything bad, the ppl who drank to much did. if your going to be an irresponsible drinker, then make sure you have a designated driver or somebody that can make sure you get home so you dont make trouble, its not to much to ask..

[kyote]

I think 21 is fair. I know there are alot of 18 yr olds mature enough to handle the resposibility but more are probably not. :|

[Ichhabe]

...and when did this forum became a platform for gun-crazed NRA's???

[Kriz]

What's wrong with alcohol ? If dealt with in a responsible way it's A ok if you ask me !

[charliebravo]

I agree that 21 is a fair age. However I do think that if an 18 year old would be willing to pay for training at the local police or sherriff's department, show an ability to handle the firearm and shoot accurately, as well as pass a test concerning laws and shoot/no shoot situations, then he should be allowed to possess a CCW. In todays world, most 20 year olds have moved out and some are married; I think that if they are willing to show that they have a since of responsibility the they should have the right to "keep and bear arms" as granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. What are they going to do next, say that one does not hav the right to free speech until he is 75? 18 year olds can vote so their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

[charliebravo]

Alcohol is OK. But I don't think that anything good has ever come from alcohol. Only bad stuff. Unlike guns, the bad that alcohol does is not made up for by the good. However that is my opinion not based upon the US constitution. The constitution does give the right to keep and bear arms.

[Apogee]

Why did Roosevelt undo Prohibition.

B/c its yummy

[the_spec]

But I don't think that anything good has ever come from alcohol.
No? I think it really helped taking away land from the indians. j/k

No honestly, do things have to do something good to have a "right" to be available? I mean, what good comes from a chocolate bar? And another question, what good does CCW? No trust in the police?
I understand that some people very much insist on their constitutional rights, but come on, that thing's like 200 years old and society has a little changed since then. Still afraid of King George?

What I do like about the US is the "no alcohol under 21" law, since I don't see why youths should be encouraged to ruin their health earlier. In germany you can get soft alcohol at age 16 and I personally hate to run into some drunken, underage loudmouth. The "good stuff" is available at 18, also the time when you're allowed to make your driver's license. So you can count one and one together and know why so many 18year olds end up at a tree when driving home from a party or the disco.

[Seoulstriker]

But I don't think that anything good has ever come from alcohol.
No? I think it really helped taking away land from the indians. j/k

No honestly, do things have to do something good to have a "right" to be available? I mean, what good comes from a chocolate bar? And another question, what good does CCW? No trust in the police?
I understand that some people very much insist on their constitutional rights, but come on, that thing's like 200 years old and society has a little changed since then. Still afraid of King George?

What I do like about the US is the "no alcohol under 21" law, since I don't see why youths should be encouraged to ruin their health earlier. In germany you can get soft alcohol at age 16 and I personally hate to run into some drunken, underage loudmouth. The "good stuff" is available at 18, also the time when you're allowed to make your driver's license. So you can count one and one together and know why so many 18year olds end up at a tree when driving home from a party or the disco.

the disco? p-)

[Beowulf]

And another question, what good does CCW? No trust in the police?
I understand that some people very much insist on their constitutional rights, but come on, that thing's like 200 years old and society has a little changed since then. Still afraid of King George?

The police do not actively prevent crime, they can stop a crime in progress, but it is not a cop's job to actively protect every citizen. That is the citizen's responsibility.
-b
edit: any LEO please correct if I am mistaken.....

[the_spec]

@Seoulstriker:
Well, in rural germany, in the little villages, a local disco seems to be the center of activity for a whole area. Might be an outfashioned term, but I simply don't know a better word for it, since I wouldn't call it a "club" or sth. like that.

@beowulf:
I see your point, but in europe and many other countries as well, people solely depend on the police and it works. I think the point of the police, regarding the issue, is to make the streets safer, but I don't see where they become safer if everyone's carrying a gun. It's also a question of proportions. Let's take an armed robber: without CCW we have some poor guy losing his money, with CCW we probably have a dead robber. Now it's probably hard for some of you to feel sympathy for the robber there, but is a little bit of money worth a human life? Just as an example.

[charliebravo]

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no robberies!

[Seoulstriker]

@Seoulstriker:
Well, in rural germany, in the little villages, a local disco seems to be the center of activity for a whole area. Might be an outfashioned term, but I simply don't know a better word for it, since I wouldn't call it a "club" or sth. like that.


the center of activity for a whole area? i don't even know what the equivalent would be. i thought you were originally referring to a 'dance club' of sorts...

[spier]

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no robberies!This is where AFV's come into play..

[martinexsquaddie]

easy option carry a rifle you've still got your blessed right to bear arms and no need for a ccw

[NcDeuce]

I agree with that, but one is not guaranteed the right to buy alcohol by the Constitution. However he is guaranteed the right to bear arms. But I think alcohol shoud be made illegal because nothing good has ever come from it. Why did Roosevelt undo Prohibition.

bootlegging for one thing. alcohal never did anything bad, the ppl who drank to much did. if your going to be an irresponsible drinker, then make sure you have a designated driver or somebody that can make sure you get home so you dont make trouble, its not to much to ask..

Moderation is the key to everything in life. Alcohol is no different, wine is actually healthy for elder folk every now and then.

Besides...even with the 21 rule...are you guys having trouble getting the stuff?!

[the_spec]

@Seoulstriker:
Guess I was referring to a dance club of some sort, but it's easy to get lost with explaining such things. On the other hand, I don't think there's much going on in these villages, so the friday night dance club with the obligatory fight should represent the center of activity for that whole area on that night.

@charliebravo:
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Probably leads to robbers carrying bigger guns, or worse, shoot before even giving you the chance to "just" give your money.

[charliebravo]

IF I GET SHOT BEFORE I GET ROBBED THEN THATS MY BUSINESS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT MOST ROBBERS ARE WILLING TO MURDER FOR MONEY. BUT AGAIN IF IF EVERYONE CARRIED A GUN THEN THE GUY WHON SHOT ME WOULD BE QUICKLY SHOT LEADING TO LESS ROBBERIES BECAUSE EVERY ROBBER WOULD END UP DEAD WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOT ME FIRST!

[the_spec]

Which in turn would lead to a lot of dead bodies on the streets, which eventually would lead to stricter gun laws, since so many people had been killed by guns.

[Chris1]

Interesting
You don't believe that someone will shoot you to rob you
but you're quite happy to believe that you can shoot someone if they try to rob you.
Robbery is not a capital offense.
Those lads in Afghanistan and Iraq can't shoot someone for actually attempting to cause them serious harm, why should you be able to shoot someone after your mobile phone?

[charliebravo]

You think that if Every attempted robber got shot, that the robbery rates would not go down substantially? And just because someone says give me your wallet does not give you the right to shoot them, but you do have the right to say no. And if that person is properly warned that you have a weapon and will use it if he attackes you then you have the right to shoot him.

P.S. No robber is ever going to get my money, even if I don't have a gun he will have to kill me or I kill him but he won't get mine!

[the_spec]

Since killing a person doesn't seem to bother you, my arguments might not have the greatest effect on you. I don't know you, but to me it seems a little irresponible to get yourself killed over your wallet. I mean, come on, there are more important things in life. After all I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to explain to the police why I shot and killed a man, with not witnesses around.

[Chris1]

First off,
No I do not
You are looking at the effect and not at the cause.
If every robber is shot, will that eliminate poverty?
If every robber is shot, will that eliminate drug crime?
Its the same logic as saying shoot the Jews and the world will be a better place
IE
FLAWED
Second, why are you worried about being mugged when you obviously never have?
Do you think that some guy with a bag with SWAG on it and black mask on his mug will jump out and say "Your money or your life"
Do you think he's going to give you time to calmly explain "I have a firearm and I did a test and I shoot weally accurate and mister policeman taught me how"
or is he going to clout you and grab whats in your pockets and run (INCLUDING your weapon) ?
Its an escalation of the situation that could result in your death or you killing someone over what?
Some money?
A mobile phone?
Tell the bloke to Foxtrot Oscar, fight back if it gets to that but pulling a gun would be right up there on my list of "**** ing idiotic things to do"

[SOG]

@beowulf:
I see your point, but in europe and many other countries as well, people solely depend on the police and it works. I think the point of the police, regarding the issue, is to make the streets safer, but I don't see where they become safer if everyone's carrying a gun. It's also a question of proportions. Let's take an armed robber: without CCW we have some poor guy losing his money, with CCW we probably have a dead robber. Now it's probably hard for some of you to feel sympathy for the robber there, but is a little bit of money worth a human life? Just as an example.

i dont know, someone who points guns at people for a living, amongst other things and steals their posessions, i dont consider that living much of a life, let alone being human.

in reverse would it be worth stopping the robber cold rather than having him one day kill someone for thier posessions because they didnt comply quick enough or just didnt feel like giving a criminal what he wanted? id drop the ****er hard. let alone the legalities and back end paper flow of hundreds of filed claims, post trauma's, more money needed to patrol the streets etc etc.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Wow what a useless discussion. For some stupid reason many of you think that robbers dont have a weapon...usually they do have a weapon and thats why they are robbing your dumb ass is because they got it and you dont. If you pulled a weapon on them most likely they would pull one back (or in most case's shoot you), for some reason you kids think your superman and wont get hurt. Next time you get robbed try pulling a gun and get back to me with the results on that one there cowboys p-)

[mocking_loudly_died]

I think its disturbing that people would like to see a world were every one is concealing firearms, come on that’s just raging paranoia.

I have already foreseen your replies my NRA friends.

"Shut up liberal scum, what are you going to do when a serial killer is having his way with your mother?"

Christ, stop being so damn fruity and enjoy life.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

mocking_loudly_died hit the nail straight on the head there.

[Durandal]

As a long time member of the NRA and recent member of the ILFA, I have to disagree.

Twenty-One years old is just fine. Comparing trained and fairly organized soldiers with kids just out of high school is rediculous. Yes, they may be the same age, but their lives are already completely different.

Now, if you want to issue a CCL to a member of our armed forces after meeting every other requirment, besides age, in the state of your choice, fine. Civilian 18 year olds can wait till they're 21.

Besides, CCL is a State issue, not a Federal one. CCL is not an ownership. You are granted that PRIVILEDGE.

Keep in mind, I am a CCL holder that lives in the State of Kentucky (A "will" grant, not "may" grant State).

[fred_engles]

Maybe I'm outside the mainstream on this; but I don't believe a 40 year old has a right to carry a concealed weapon. For that matter, I believe I have a much more important right: the right for the police to keep anyone carrying a concealed weapons far away from me and those I love.

[Tane Angle]

Alcohol doesn't do bad things, people using alcohol does bad things. Same for guns, rocks, clubs, paper weights, and toothpicks, among other things. By the way, I don't drink alcohol, so I'd like to think that I'm fairly objective.

Also, most studies show that legalizing alcohol for minors lowers the binge drinking rate. Essentially, the same volume and mass of alcohol, but spread out over more time. Less dangerous, in general.

As for concealed weapons, I carry, but I don't know if 18-year olds need them. If the draft is reinstated, the issue of 18-20-year olds being barred from anything 21-year olds can do might be an issue.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[charliebravo]

You are right, I have never been mugged, so maybe I am young and stupid. but it is not that $22 is worth my life its the principle of the matter, no one is going to take what I worked for without a fight, and if that robber has a gun and I don't it won't be much of a fight. However if I have a gun as well, it might be a different story. If guns don't help deter crime then why do cops have them. You don't hear much about cops getting mugged now do you.

[Nawlins]

I see your point, but in europe and many other countries as well, people solely depend on the police and it works. I think the point of the police, regarding the issue, is to make the streets safer, but I don't see where they become safer if everyone's carrying a gun. It's also a question of proportions. Let's take an armed robber: without CCW we have some poor guy losing his money, with CCW we probably have a dead robber. Now it's probably hard for some of you to feel sympathy for the robber there, but is a little bit of money worth a human life? Just as an example.

Just a few things. First, I find guns frightening and violence horrifying, so I'm not some "NRA nut" as someone mentioned. But I've been made aware of some facts that have made me think that responsible citizens owning weapons is not a bad idea.

First of all, people may solely rely on police in other countries, but how many of these countries have populations the size of the US? I would venture to say few or none. More people means more bad guys and more people to protect, putting greater demands on the police force (which IMO is underpaid to begin with). You can't expect the police to protect every single person in a large city, especially ones with high crime rates.

Second, you posed an example of a robber being shot. Based on what I know, which is admittedly little, a "poor robber" who may or may not be armed, is not that likely to be shot by a responsible CCW carrier. If I know the law correctly, you can only use lethal force on someone if they are threatening you or your family with serious injury or death. The average robber isn't going to do that, and would be warned off simply by the sight of the weapon. Usually when a legal weapon is used, much more than a "little bit of money" is at stake.

More often, CCW is used to prevent assault, rape, and/or murder. If someone is going to use violence or lethal force on me, I would want myself or my husband to be able to use equal violence in return, to protect ourselves from harm. The criminal has initiated a violent encounter, and must have considered and disregarded all possible consequences, including the fact that you might kill him before he kills you (of course he's probably arrogantly decided that that won't happen and that's why he has targeted you).

I heard of an incident that happened near here where a man walked into a restaurant and just started shooting people one by one. There were even police in the restaurant, but they had left their weapons in the car. If just one person there had had a CCW, perhaps only one life would have been lost instead of so many more.

[charliebravo]

Thats right on Nawlins.

[mocking_loudly_died]

I heard of an incident that happened near here where a man walked into a restaurant and just started shooting people one by one. There were even police in the restaurant, but they had left their weapons in the car. If just one person there had had a CCW, perhaps only one life would have been lost instead of so many more.

That’s such an implausible argument though.

You are saying the only prevention is to have more fire arms, it speaks volumes about a society if your only options are to give into fear and load up with weapons.

When I see images on TV with American schools scanning kids for weapons it’s a million miles away from the life style in Australia.

Wouldn't you people want to be free of guns and live a relatively relaxed life?

This whole firearm system seems to based on perpetual fear of being attacked.

I just believe that’s a pretty sad way to spend your limited time on this planet.

[charliebravo]

It is important to remember that gun-control laws only remove guns from law abiding citizens. What do yall think about a non-concealed carry?

[Nawlins]

Wouldn't you people want to be free of guns and live a relatively relaxed life?

This whole firearm system seems to based on perpetual fear of being attacked.

I just believe that’s a pretty sad way to spend your limited time on this planet.

That sure would be nice. Unfortunately, the problem here is that there are already too many illegal weapons on the street, owned by criminals, for that to happen.

I used to believe that less guns was the answer. But I've realized that it's naive of me to think that if I just steer clear of guns no one will ever use one on me.


It is important to remember that gun-control laws only remove guns from law abiding citizens.

Exactly.

[Durandal]

I think its disturbing that people would like to see a world were every one is concealing firearms, come on that’s just raging paranoia.

I have already foreseen your replies my NRA friends.

"Shut up liberal scum, what are you going to do when a serial killer is having his way with your mother?"

Christ, stop being so damn fruity and enjoy life.

I enjoy life. I also have a CCL. Why? At first it was because I could. That is it. Guns are a part of my life and some of my friends' lives (I know they are not for everyone and that is fine). I enjoy shooting...target shooting and I enjoy collecting firearms old and new, like someone enjoys getting tattoos.

If I tried to take away something you enjoyed, I am sure you would get pissy and try to get people motivated to defend it. That is what most NRA members are dealing with yearly. One assault after another, not just on something we think is a right, but something we enjoy.

It gets rough sometimes and even if you disagree with what I enjoy doing I still try to respect your view point.

I am not asking you to understand it or even support it, but to simply respect it.

This kid is getting politcally active, maybe not in the best way, certainly not on issue I agree with, but he is doing what he thinks is right. In this day and age that is good thing.

Chill with the negative vibes... :)

Cheers!

[charliebravo]

I disagree. if guns were totally done away with, this post woould be about knives instead of guns.

[mocking_loudly_died]

That sure would be nice. Unfortunately, the problem here is that there are already too many illegal weapons on the street, owned by criminals, for that to happen.

Ok, my next point would be why are there so many illegal weapons in America?

Serious question.

[Nawlins]

Ok, my next point would be why are there so many illegal weapons in America?

Serious question.

I wish I knew. And I wish we could get rid of them.

[Tane Angle]

The vast majority of illegal weapons in America are bought legally elsewhere in America. For example, one might buy handguns in the South, then bring them to cities like LA, NY, or Chicago to make a profit. Most illegal guns are legal to someone else. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Shake n Bake]

Its obvious some of you have never been victims of a crime..


Wow what a useless discussion. For some stupid reason many of you think that robbers dont have a weapon...usually they do have a weapon and thats why they are robbing your dumb ass is because they got it and you dont. If you pulled a weapon on them most likely they would pull one back (or in most case's shoot you), for some reason you kids think your superman and wont get hurt. Next time you get robbed try pulling a gun and get back to me with the results on that one there cowboys p-)


Talk about someone who could sure use a CCW permit

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5051

[Durandal]

That’s such an implausible argument though.

You are saying the only prevention is to have more fire arms, it speaks volumes about a society if your only options are to give into fear and load up with weapons.

When I see images on TV with American schools scanning kids for weapons it’s a million miles away from the life style in Australia.

Wouldn't you people want to be free of guns and live a relatively relaxed life?

This whole firearm system seems to based on perpetual fear of being attacked.

I just believe that’s a pretty sad way to spend your limited time on this planet.

His argument is very credible though. What if a teacher had been carrying a pistol on the day two student walked into Columbine? Guns gotten illegally I might add. These events are few and far between though. There is a media bias when coveriing violence. They love it. They cover it to the extreme and then they export it. That is what you see. I live in a area that has a population of close to 2 Million and very few schools in this area have metal detectors.

Ultimately it a cultural thing. If you look at say, Canada, where the number of per capaita gun owning households is MUCH larger thant he United States, the level of crime simply does not correspond.

It ain't about the guns.


You have to start examining the society.

[charliebravo]

I don't think that yall understand, if we get rid of guns then we'll have to get rid of knives, then iron bars, then poisons, and so on. By the way, the main reason that I want a CCW is so I can own a hangun and buy ammunition, not because I feel threatened by criminals. But thats a good reason.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Its obvious some of you have never been victims of a crime..

Wrong, I was hospitalised for a mugging, explained in another thread.

You are still using fear as a basis for your posistion.


The vast majority of illegal weapons in America are bought legally elsewhere in America. For example, one might buy handguns in the South, then bring them to cities like LA, NY, or Chicago to make a profit. Most illegal guns are legal to someone else. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Well, doesn’t that then lead to the conclusion that illegal firearms are certainly most of the time legal at one stage, thus if America instituted a tough gun reform package eventually firearm crime would wind down.

No one is saying that you can always prevent a criminal from committing a firearm based crime, what I am suggesting is that you can limit the social upheaval these weapons seem to cause in your society.

Deep down I know I can't convince you, but hey it's worth a shot (bad pun).

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Shake n Bake nice personal attack dumbass. :slap:
Funny how my sick skinny white ass isnt the one worried about being robbed/ganked/punked out.

"This whole firearm system seems to based on perpetual fear of being attacked.

I just believe that’s a pretty sad way to spend your limited time on this planet."
end of case good point mocking_loudly_died ...what you guys afraid of anyways?

[Durandal]

[quote]Ok, my next point would be why are there so many illegal weapons in America?

Serious question.

Prosecute gun related crimes rather than sending some to prison for 20 years for possessing less than ounce of weed. Make gun laws that are smart and universal, better background checks.

Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law FFLs that knowingly break the law. 90%of the illegally purchased firearms can be traced to less than 20 stores. Yet we wonder why this still goes on.

The biggest one I support: Make the firearm owner responsible for the following things as a result of their lack of responsiblity: Accidental or deliberate death of someone as a result of accidental firearm discharge, a criminal or aggravated use of firearm as a result of theft (to avoid charges, the owner MUST have reported the theft within 24 hours of it happening).

That is it.

Most guns in America are legally owned. A few are not.

I am more worried about pollution of drinking water than gun related crime to be honest.

[Tane Angle]

mocking_loudly_died,
thus if America instituted a tough gun reform package eventually firearm crime would wind down.

That's exactly what I'm saying, but I wanted people to draw that conclusion for themselves, as you did. The laws that allow people to buy multiple guns in short amounts of time are serious issues here in NY, even though they are laws in states far from here. NY doesn't get much say in those states' laws though. Want to buy guns, okay. But why so many so quickly? Is there a legal reason/use? I mean that question for real, not rhetorically. Thanks. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Also, that's a good point, Durandal, about responsibility. Were the original legal buyers of the guns more accountable for what happened to their weapons, and were gun stores more accountable for who they sold their weapons to, the domestic illegal small arms trade (which is very different from the international arms market, by the way) might be greatly affected. Have a good one, and just some thoughts....

[the_spec]

Instead of asking what had happened if the "law abiding citizen" had had a weapon, you should rather ask why the "criminal" had a weapon in the first place. I don't quite follow the logic of "if everybody is armed, there are no crimes". Because that situation would lead us back to the wild west: "I don't like them color of your shoes - BANG!". I know, that's not the picture of the responsible, educated owner of firearms, but hey, we were talking about giving guns to every so-called "law abiding citizen" and that could get out of hand. Btw. I don't think police safety is a question of population, 'cause normally you adjust the police strength to the number of the population, or are you honestly trying to tell me that the country with the largest defense budget on this planet can't maintain a proper police force throughout the country?
Everyone who tells me he would risk getting killed for $20 just out of principle, might go and explain that to his family and friends, they'd sure love that thought.

@mocking:
Might I ask who your avatar is? It seems very familar, but I'm not sure.

[Marxist203]

We have soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan right now that are only 18 years old. We will ket an 18 year old fight and die, but we won't let him carry a concealed weapon. This is not right.

He is not allowed to buy alcohol either.

Yeah...I think there is a damn good reason you dont let people carry concealed weapons. Especially if they are 18...I live in Canada, gun control works. So yeah you can tell Im opposed to this idea.

But since Im Canadian Im also an Alchoholic, and as such I believe that if you are old enough to fight, and possibly die for your country. You should be allowed to get hammed. The legal age of Drinking in Canada is 19, same thing with Alabama and 2 other states that I dont know of...Let your underage fighting men get hammed!

[kinghk]

But since Im Canadian Im also an Alchoholic, and as such I believe that if you are old enough to fight, and possibly die for your country. You should be allowed to get hammed. The legal age of Drinking in Canada is 19, same thing with Alabama and 2 other states that I dont know of...Let your underage fighting men get hammed!

Where I live you'll have to be:
16 to buy an shotgun/rifle (you'll have to apply for a licence though)
18 to buy wine/beer
20 to buy alcohol with alcoholpercent over what you find in beer/wine
21 to buy a rifle/pistol (you'll have to apply for a licence though)
17 to join the armed forces
Carrying a concealed weapon is a illegal

How logic is this?

[Durandal]

That's exactly what I'm saying, but I wanted people to draw that conclusion for themselves, as you did. The laws that allow people to buy multiple guns in short amounts of time are serious issues here in NY, even though they are laws in states far from here. NY doesn't get much say in those states' laws though. Want to buy guns, okay. But why so many so quickly? Is there a legal reason/use? I mean that question for real, not rhetorically. Thanks. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I have to rant here for a bit...

New York already has tough firearms laws. It is is illegal to buy a pistol in ANY State other than your own and you can only purchase longarms (shotguns and rifles) in your home State and States adjacent to your home State.

Compared to thirty years ago, that is EXTREMELY controlled. the laws are in place already to make owning a gun a pain in the ass. The last time three times I purchased firearms I had to wait three days because there was a delay in paperwork, which was a REAL hassle for me, since it involved driving an additional three hundred miles.

I follow the laws. I obey and support them, why should I suffer? Why shouldn't I be able to buy 5 guns at a time. I collect them like someone would collect cars or motorcycles.

If anything I want a majority of the laws to get axed simply to make it more reasonable and easier for the common citizen to undersatand the laws. I mean, thanks to the anti-gun nuts, most of America thinks the 1994 Assault Weapons Bill bans AUTOMATIC weapons. Thanks to poor planning and central State control, guns I legally own in Kentucky (where all cities have the same laws as the State) are illegal in the city of Cincinnati (a city in the State of Ohio), but legal in the State of Ohio and a 40 round AK-47 clip, while legal in Kentucky is completely illegal in Ohio.

It makes no sense. People call for more laws and stricter control (yes, I no I proposed some simple laws to tighten up on responsibilities, but...) YET we already have them. New York, the District of Columbia, California, and Illionois have the most strict gun laws in the country not only in WHAT you can possess, but how you can actually get them. Yet, these areas have the highest gun related problems. Why is this?

It is not because guns are easier to get in other States. It is an issue with our society and there is little we can do to solve that. Sad as it may seem, most of the illegal possession and transfers happens within the minority communities and inner city areas and is usually related to some other crime such as drug trafficking, prostitution, and theft. More people die each year from smoking. More people die each year from automobile accidents. More children under the age of ten die in pools that by accidental gun related deaths (an average of 85 nation-wide). Yet, somehow, we seem to think that the number are horrible. Are they when compared to another nation that does not allow gun ownership? Sure, if you look at the right countries. Have these laws prevent mass gun related murders similar to occassional ones that happen in the United States? No, of course not. Germany, France, Australia, Japan, have all had such events even though their gun control had been MUCH heavier than Americans. Britian allows NO real firearm ownership save hunting shotguns, yet if you look at the number of handguns important illegally into the country, you would be amazed and when the figures on gun violence is observed, England is focused on, claiming SUCCESS! While other parts of BRITAIN are at an all time high (Scotland...my favorite country in the world outside the US ebing the highest).

Control simply pisses off the people that want to legally own guns and FORTUNATELY we are rational enough to understand this. We are not so simple to be taken in by the biased groups like the Brady Foundation. We are fortunate enough to have a group that protects our Constitutional RIGHT to own firearms when the ACLU won't even touch the issue. Ultimately, the people that support more control support less freedom. It sounds harsh, I know, but I also support other freedom as well. Your freedom to smoke, get fat, drive whatever car you want, worship what ever god you want to, have *** with a man, woman, or both, I do not care. Why? Because I respect your right to try to live a happy life, with as little rules and regulations as possible. I belive in a Libertarian way of life where the government is small and dabbles as little as possible in our private lives.

To get back on the subject...

People need to educate themselves about current gun laws both in and around their States. Till they do, calls for MORE gun control arre pure idiocy. For the laws are already in place. No one pays attention to them.

Sorry, criminals do not pay attention to them.

[Nawlins]

I don't think police safety is a question of population, 'cause normally you adjust the police strength to the number of the population, or are you honestly trying to tell me that the country with the largest defense budget on this planet can't maintain a proper police force throughout the country?


Our police forces are generally strong enough, but it would simply be ridiculous to ask them to protect every single citizen all the time and to prevent violent crime. That's practically impossible, unless you have a police force equal to the size of the rest of the population, and it would be intrusive. To some extent, citizens have to be able to take care of themselves.

Actually, AFAIK, the defense budget has nothing to do with the police force. Cities and/or states train and pay their police forces, while the defense budget is federal. We have federal LE agencies, but the average cop is paid by his city (correct?). So the two don't exactly correlate. Some cities have great police forces, others not so great because they can't afford to pay alot of officers, or have the newest equipment or best training like wealthier cities.

The town I grew up in has a police force of approximately eight, and three cars, because it's small and poor. That simply isn't enough to provide constant protection to several thousand people. But crime is relatively low because it's also a rural town in the south and most people hunt, and therefore have a shotgun in their home. It's a good deterrent for criminals.

[the_spec]

The police is not expected to be everywhere and protect everyone, they just have to be present and available when it counts. As I told you before, it works well in europe, with a lot less deaths by firearms than in the US. We don't have a police officer for every single citizen, still there is sufficient protection.
As for the defense budget, I was merely pointing out that a country that spends enormous sums of money to protect the outside, should be expected to maintain a proper police force to secure the inside. Sure, states are responsible for their police forces, but as I pointed out, it would be ridiculous to have the best army in the world and a police force that sucks (which it doesn't, but just as an example).
As you're saying that if the police is too weak in some cities, there should be some sort of neighbor patrol or whatever you call it. Some sort of controlled and organized "self help" protection force, made up of willing citizens. I much rather have that than everybody carrying a gun.
Generally, the situation of constantly carrying a weapon and being afraid wouldn't suit me. That would feel like living in a third world country, where everyone gets his AK for $50 and just gotta keep up with it if you want to survive.
In my opinion, a modern society shouldn't have to depend on armed citizenry to protect itself from crime.

[Seiyuuki]

I agree with that, but one is not guaranteed the right to buy alcohol by the Constitution. However he is guaranteed the right to bear arms. But I think alcohol shoud be made illegal because nothing good has ever come from it. Why did Roosevelt undo Prohibition.

Prohibition gave us the Mafia.


...and when did this forum became a platform for gun-crazed NRA's???

Don't generalize and stereotype please.

[SOG]

The police is not expected to be everywhere and protect everyone, they just have to be present and available when it counts. As I told you before, it works well in europe, with a lot less deaths by firearms than in the US. We don't have a police officer for every single citizen, still there is sufficient protection.
As for the defense budget, I was merely pointing out that a country that spends enormous sums of money to protect the outside, should be expected to maintain a proper police force to secure the inside. Sure, states are responsible for their police forces, but as I pointed out, it would be ridiculous to have the best army in the world and a police force that sucks (which it doesn't, but just as an example).
As you're saying that if the police is too weak in some cities, there should be some sort of neighbor patrol or whatever you call it. Some sort of controlled and organized "self help" protection force, made up of willing citizens. I much rather have that than everybody carrying a gun.
Generally, the situation of constantly carrying a weapon and being afraid wouldn't suit me. That would feel like living in a third world country, where everyone gets his AK for $50 and just gotta keep up with it if you want to survive.
In my opinion, a modern society shouldn't have to depend on armed citizenry to protect itself from crime.

well last time i checked gun related deaths it was something like this
Germany-361
France-255
Canada-105
UK-68
Australia-65
Japan-39
USA-11,127
actually, the funny thing is michael moore provided those stats, of course without explaining them....

of course what the US statistic doesnt say is 66% of those deaths in america were self inflicted/suicide related, and then on top of that you can factor in pussy gang bangers (thousands across the US) shooting and killing each other in gang wars everyday, then you factor in other odd occurences, accidents and intended murder. what it comes down to is the odds of you, a US citizen, dying from someone shooting you with merderous intent, out of 300 million people, is **** to none. you could fairly say possibly 3000 people might get murdered for various reasons, lovers spats, quarrels, fights, intended murders etc. woopteedoo.

compared to the deaths in hundreds of thousands from smoking, drinking, automotive, over eating, guns pale in comparison to the damage, death, lawsuits, and legal backflow created by any one of these other problems.

it is a simple right of american citizens, with any freedom comes a downside. big freakin whoop. people should just let niggahs chill and just let it be.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Actually smoking kills more people every year then murders (got a light?).
Your more likely to die in Canada from second hand smoke then the local hommie down the street. (assuming you dont f*ck his biatch and disrespect his "gangsta") Anyways besides, I want to still hear about someone pulling a gun on a robber carrying a gun..im still waiting for someone to get back to me on that ;)

[SOG]

well i sure wouldnt pull a weapon on someone who had a weapon on me but i might consider using it when they turn to run away. pending you keep the weapon in the small of your back or concealed inside and under your shirt etc then someone robbing you would never find it if you just emptied your pockets. i figure if the robber turns his back 10-20 feet from you a warning shout/shot might be plausible. or of course if someone else is getting robbed and thier attention isnt on you, you may be able to do something without attracting robbers attention.

beats me.

[Nawlins]

Generally, the situation of constantly carrying a weapon and being afraid wouldn't suit me. That would feel like living in a third world country, where everyone gets his AK for $50 and just gotta keep up with it if you want to survive.

That's exactly why we are ALLOWED but not REQUIRED to carry a weapon. If it doesn't suit you, fine, don't do it. It doesn't particularly suit me either. But I wouldn't deny the right to other responsible, law-abiding citizens.

I'm not saying everyone should carry a weapon. I'm saying everyone should be allowed to if they choose. Many people will choose not to, so this point you keep stressing of EVERYONE having a gun just isn't relevant.

I don't see how some sort of "neighbor patrol" as you call it would be different than those who choose to owning a weapon and protecting their families and neighbors, other than more closely resembling a volunteer police force (which we do have, to supplement the paid force) rather than responsible human beings taking care of themselves.

I didn't say that our police forces suck. They are made up of many fine men and women... but they can't be everywhere at once, and sometimes they don't have the manpower or equipment they need.

I would like to see some statistics for worldwide deaths by firearms that didn't come from Moore. I'll find them myself when I have more time.

[the_spec]

What I don't quite agree with is that you talk about "everybody" should be able to get a weapon and that you assume that "everybody" is a responsible person. Because if one of those "responsible persons" loses it, he'll have a shotgun or whatever at hand, to "express" his anger. And to the police force, as I said, no one expects them to be everywhere, they just have to be present.
Btw. I would like to see some statistics from credible sources as well, they're kinda hard to come by.

[Nawlins]

What I don't quite agree with is that you talk about "everybody" should be able to get a weapon and that you assume that "everybody" is a responsible person. Because if one of those "responsible persons" loses it, he'll have a shotgun or whatever at hand, to "express" his anger.

That's why legal guns are registered, gun buyers get background checks, etc. etc. People likely to 'lose it' aren't allowed to buy guns, as I understand it.

I've got no problem restricting the hell out of lawbreakers and the mentally unstable, for their own protection and the protection of others... but don't punish responsible people in the process.

[budanski]

That's why legal guns are registered, gun buyers get background checks, etc. etc. People likely to 'lose it' aren't allowed to buy guns, as I understand it.

I've got no problem restricting the hell out of lawbreakers and the mentally unstable, for their own protection and the protection of others... but don't punish responsible people in the process.

Exactly.

They can eventually prohibit guns on law abiding citizens. The others will always obtain guns illegally, why else are they called criminals.

[Chris1]

BS.
Its about Firearms in circulation.
Durandal mentioned this himself, too many firearms in circulation and some are going to end up in criminal hands.
Reduce the overall number of firearms in circulation and you reduce the number that end up in criminal hands.

[Nawlins]

BS.
Its about Firearms in circulation.
Durandal mentioned this himself, too many firearms in circulation and some are going to end up in criminal hands.
Reduce the overall number of firearms in circulation and you reduce the number that end up in criminal hands.

Please. You think criminals care where their weapons come from? Sure we can reduce the number of legal guns in circulation domestically, but we can't remove guns from circulation all over the world.

[Chris1]

so, some gangbanger (as in submachine gun toting type, not dodgy Kazaa movie type) , who now can't get his sub machine gun on the street corner is going to immediately get on a plane and go abroad?
No, it ain't going to stop illegal firearms entering a country
It will, as you've pointed out yourself, "reduce the number of legal guns in circulation domestically"
Would that help reduce US gun crime?
Don't know, not in the US.
Putting more guns in peoples hands will not.
Do that and you get Bosnia not a hundred years ago, everyone sleeping with an AK47 under their bed just in case the next door neighbour wants a bigger back garden.

[Nawlins]

Do that and you get Bosnia not a hundred years ago, everyone sleeping with an AK47 under their bed just in case the next door neighbour wants a bigger back garden.

I don't see that happening.

[Chris1]

Neither did the Bosnians :)

[spoonman]

CCW reduces crime. this is a fact, do the research and you will see that municipalities that allow widespread CCW are scores safer than places that restrict the second amendement right.

[Nawlins]

CCW reduces crime. this is a fact, do the research and you will see that municipalities that allow widespread CCW are scores safer than places that restrict the second amendement right.

Thank you. Try More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

[joe mama]

so, according to some of you, part of (or all of) the solution to the problem in the us is to make less guns available, right? ok, so let's have stricter gun laws, which will take guns out of circulation, and let's have these laws apply to all 50 states. what should the laws do?

- require all people who have guns illegally to turn those guns in? fyi, these people are criminals - they don't obey the law now, why would they obey it to turn in their guns?

- require people who have guns legally to turn some (all?) of them in? anyone who legally owns a gun who's going to sell/give it to someone illegally (ie breaking one law(actually several)) is not going to obey this law - fyi (again), these people are criminals - they don't obey the law now (by illegally selling guns even if they obtain them legally), why would they obey it to turn in their guns?

so, what will happen? the law will say: no criminals can have guns! turn them in! and you law abiding citizens, you turn in some/all of your guns too (and/or you can't buy any more)! and what will happen? well, the criminals will ignore the law...THEY'RE CRIMINALS! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS!...and some (maybe all) legal gun owners will turn in their guns, and what will we have? criminals with guns, and law abiding citizens without...but that's ok, i'll certainly trust a criminal to be happy just robbing me if i don't resist, there's no way he'll decide to hurt me (or someone i care about, or a stranger), after all, it's illegal for him to hurt me...oh wait, he already shows that he doesn't care about the law by robbing me in the first place...
by the way, we already have laws saying criminals can't have guns, and they ignore these laws now (duh, they're criminals!)...so what should we do, make more laws that say the same thing? or enforce the ones we have?

by the way, in case you're curious, my guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car...(my apologies to anyone who doesn't know who he is)

[Chris1]

Yeah
I've got such a great list of research material
Works done by people like
Micheal "I'm fat and its you're fault" Moore
or
Charlton "I'm the real Omega man" Heston
"Guns are owned by people with horns and a pointy tail" or "its my god given right to carry an armalite to work" :)
No thanks :)
I've met people who really could use a gun, they have people out to kill or evict them from their homes, you're telling me you should carry around a handgun because one day in the far off future you might meet someone going around blatting everyone in sight?
Sorry, I don't get it :)

Joe Mama, another flawed arguement, "Criminals don't obey the law"
If there are no firearms to sell, how is the criminal supposed to buy?
Who said anything about turning in firearms?
So, the US police is so inept they will never catch any criminals whatsoever?
Thats what you're saying.
If a criminal has a gun, sorry but I'm happy with giving in and being content with the thought that one day the coppers are going to come along and zap him.
Who said anything about banning firearms?
I haven't.
I'm for reducing the number of them in circulation, we tried that over here, It was poorly implemented by a Government looking for a quick and easy fix (yet happy spending millions on consultants left right and centre)
At the minute, in my opinion, no-one has it right because everyone is entrenching themselves in the "Guns are evil" and "cold dead hands" groups.
I'm not that well paid to offer a solution, from my personnal experiances I just don't think arming the population is the best solution.

[spoonman]

you're telling me you should carry around a handgun because one day in the far off future you might meet someone going around blatting everyone in sight?
Sorry, I don't get it :)

why wear a seatbelt? carrying a handgun is preventive medicine, especially for women who are at an automatic disadvantage if accosted by a male. in my eyes it is better to have one dead rapist than one raped woman. if you want unbiased statistics check with the CDC or the FBI crime reports. hard facts from reputable sources support allowing the qualified the right to carry firearms.


from my personnal experiances I just don't think arming the population is the best solution.

you're wrong.

[Chris1]

rofl
I'm wrong but you're walking around with a gun :D
Been said, you think I'm wrong I don't, whoopie.
I'm too far away to catch a richochet so I'm not too bothered :)

[Nawlins]

Yeah
I've got such a great list of research material
Works done by people like
Micheal "I'm fat and its you're fault" Moore
or
Charlton "I'm the real Omega man" Heston
"Guns are owned by people with horns and a pointy tail" or "its my god given right to carry an armalite to work"
No thanks
I've met people who really could use a gun, they have people out to kill or evict them from their homes, you're telling me you should carry around a handgun because one day in the far off future you might meet someone going around blatting everyone in sight?
Sorry, I don't get it

Joe Mama, another flawed arguement, "Criminals don't obey the law"
If there are no firearms to sell, how is the criminal supposed to buy?
Who said anything about turning in firearms?
So, the US police is so inept they will never catch any criminals whatsoever?
Thats what you're saying.
If a criminal has a gun, sorry but I'm happy with giving in and being content with the thought that one day the coppers are going to come along and zap him.
Who said anything about banning firearms?
I haven't.
I'm for reducing the number of them in circulation, we tried that over here, It was poorly implemented by a Government looking for a quick and easy fix (yet happy spending millions on consultants left right and centre)
At the minute, in my opinion, no-one has it right because everyone is entrenching themselves in the "Guns are evil" and "cold dead hands" groups.
I'm not that well paid to offer a solution, from my personnal experiances I just don't think arming the population is the best solution.


I've pretty much said all I want to say. I can't stand Moore, and I don't care much for Heston either, so my sources come from elsewhere. Like reasonable, credible people who have done research.

[James]

well i sure wouldnt pull a weapon on someone who had a weapon on me but i might consider using it when they turn to run away. pending you keep the weapon in the small of your back or concealed inside and under your shirt etc then someone robbing you would never find it if you just emptied your pockets. i figure if the robber turns his back 10-20 feet from you a warning shout/shot might be plausible. or of course if someone else is getting robbed and thier attention isnt on you, you may be able to do something without attracting robbers attention.

beats me.

NO NO NO! Don't fire warning shots. What if you hit an innocent bystander? Don't shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. You will go to jail for a very long time. If you see someone else getting robbed, get out your cell phone and dial 911.
Laws vary from state to state. In some (I believe), one can shoot an intruder in one's home w/o warning. In others, the police might ask "Did you try to flee? Why not?"

One of the worst things (IMHO) a person with a CCW/CPL can do is change their behavior because they are carrying a pistol. If you wouldn't normally walk down a dark alley in your city, why would you if you were carrying a pistol?
My state has judged me fit to carry a concealed pistol if I so desire, but I usually do not. When I do, and Mr. Kimber graces my hip, I like to think that the people around me are in a little bubble of safety.
If a person is interested in getting a CCW/CPL, I would STRONGLY reccomen taking a defensive shooting course that stresses not only operation of the firearm but covers the myriad legal aspects involved as well. The state grants you ONLY the privilege of carrying a pistol. It is up to the user to know all the ins and outs involved. Years ago I took a really good pistol course, and one of our instructors said something that has stuck in my head to this day.

"What are the best things to have if you are in a bad situation? A cell phone and a finger to dial 911."

Call 911. Run away. Don't make a bad situation worse.

End of sermon.